LCC & Cycle Alert

You’ve heard the press - the confrontational response from ‘LCC’ on council trials in Croydon.  Readers might be expecting a fierce response of defiance from Cycle Alert and I’m sorry to disappoint.

That’s because the party-line response from LCC was hastily put together two years ago, in the form of one body on the LCC board.  It’s not concurrent with many of the LCC members I have spoken to, the people who have expressed praise for Cycle Alert, the independent Grant Thornton research we have carried out into opinions of Cycle Alert.  It would be ludicrous to defame London Cycling Campaign on an issue informed by one, albeit strong opinion, especially when there is so much common ground that I share with LCC and so much I passionately admire about them.

Look at how LCC turned their Space for Cycling campaign into a national war cry, if you’re after one example of their excellence.  LCC are bloody brilliant - of course they are, I’m a member ha!

I make light of it, but there has been something of a fracas – for want of a media buzzword – between the Cycle Alert camp and a trusted LCC member which has been far from jovial and left many upset by events.

I would like to reassure readers that have contacted the honourable fellow at LCC with a view towards a resolution on this matter, but in the mean time there are a few facts I would like to set straight on the matter of tag and beacon technology and the regurgitation of negative press.

For those of you that didn’t read the original article, if can be found here. The breadth of the article was permeated with speculative argument against the efficacy of tag and beacon technology in helping to protect cyclists, with the crux of the article appealing for answers to their questions before companies and governments should adopt the technology.

This was two years ago and the answers to the questions posed (all of which I hasten to add were answered in detail) have further developed as our experience with Cycle Alert technology has broadened our knowledge with time, though the heart of it still remains. To avoid drudging over these questions for those already familiar with our journey, I will add them to our FAQ section of the website. This is not to avoid the issue, but whilst attention has been redrawn to this old critique, I would prefer to highlight the more steadfast aspect, that of subconscious behaviour that LCC postulates on.

To quote the article:

“It appears that we will continue to disagree with Cycle Alert about the importance of sub-liminal behavioural responses to safety equipment which can lead to a ‘sense of security’ tending to undermine the protective effect….These behavioural changes happen to both cyclists and drivers without us being aware of it….The importance of sub-liminal behavioural changes is understood and widely studied in safety critical industries such as aviation, mining, chemicals and the military. It is less well understood in road transport and cycle safety.”

Whilst my personal opinion on the subconscious responses that tag and beacon technology has to offer is divided with LCC’s party-line above (in part attributed our own insights into users of Cycle Alert technology), I think we are both agreed that the evidence into tag and beacon technologies to affect subliminal behavioural change in road users is little researched and poorly understood.

Cycle Alert wrote about this most recently for the Croydon Citizen.

Whilst the government is pushing to get more people cycling, I foresee research into tech such as tag and beacon as intrinsic to investigating the role of addressing the various barriers to cycling, the biggest of these we know to be fear.

Whether this fear be perceived or tangible, it is generally acknowledged that in order to make cycling more accessible to all, we need to address this real, human fear factor. And so I would stress that establishing safety effectiveness of a tag and beacon solution in reducing road accidents goes beyond the product or technology itself and has to include the human factor for the vulnerable road user also.

Cycle Alert cites the core of its brand being in its commitment to educating both cyclist and driver on safer road use. Indeed the very nature of the technology uniquely places it as door-opening device for direct engagement with both sets of road user. Does tag and beacon technology have the power to change road user behaviour?

Whilst we engage with a tag and beacon technology in order to help reduce road risk, evidence suggests that in many cases, road risk could be reduced by a change in road user behaviours. Can a tech solution like Cycle Alert address driver/vulnerable road user guidance, in order that these types of accidents and near-misses can be avoided in the first place?

Cycle Alert creator, Peter Le Masurier, would argue that indeed, it does. “The cyclist using Cycle Alert is already looking out for large vehicles, already thinking about he/she will negotiate that vehicle.”

My honourable fellow at LCC would probably argue not. There are supporters and naysayers on both camps so let us not quarrel and instead broaden our knowledge and gather the evidence.

With council trials we - just as London Cycling Campaign are - are prime-placed to gather this research, to understand better the function of tag and beacon in road safety, its role in the road user psychology.

So why would any cycle group, particularly one as well-informed and pioneering as London Cycling Campaign wish to stifle such a brilliant ground for research? I’m going to take a punt on it and say that actually, they wouldn’t wish that.  Should the honourable fellow speaking on behalf of LCC wish to make a statement to the contrary, then I have no choice but to accept that, but I still hope that my fellow LCC members will wish to make their own judgements according to the evidence.  We all have a shared goal, that of making cycling safer and more accessible to everyone.  Technology could help.  And maybe it couldn’t.  But the proof is in the pudding, and for that we need support.